Skip to main content

Eugenics

Occurring in the early twentieth-century United States was a movement that had its source in social Darwinism, known as eugenics. Men like the nineteenth-century Darwinist Herbert Spencer believed medicine and charity had unnaturally protected the unfit of society, implying that we should allow nature to take its course and root out the weak. Going a step further, eugenicists asserted that it was necessary to assist nature in this task. The aim of eugenics advocates was to improve human heredity through social measures, and was therefore a mix of utilitarian and evolutionary principles. The result in the United States was, among other things, forced sterilization laws for the handicapped, the insane, and criminals, as well as marriage restriction and anti-immigration laws (1). Given the substantial changes taking place in progressive America, then, along with the promotion of eugenic ideas, it should not be surprising to find that a movement to prevent suicide could coexist with efforts to legalize the killing of “idiots,” criminals, and other defectives (2).

Go back much farther and you find that eugenics is not such a new issue. In his Republic, Plato, too, believed that a government should shape the nature of a society by controlling who married whom. Consider his words:
"Why, I said, the principle has been already laid down that the best of either sex should be united with the best as often, and the inferior with the inferior, as seldom as possible; and that they should rear the offspring of the one sort of union, but not of the other, if the flock is to be maintained in first-rate condition. Now these goings on must be secret which the rulers only know, or there will be a further danger of our herd, as the guardians may be termed, breaking out into rebellion."
How would this take place? Plato thought the rulers could organize festivals in which unmarried people would take part in marriage lots contrived to ensure that the "best" would end up with those like them, "and then they will accuse their own ill-luck and not the rulers (3).

Equally interesting is that Plato agreed with Socrates that it was necessary to deceive the people into believing in "the myth of the metals." According to this myth, each person's soul had mixed within it a specific type of metal: gold, silver, bronze, or iron. The gold-souled people were meant to rule, the silver souls meant to be soldiers, and the bronze- or iron-souled people meant to be producers. It was necessary to observe children to determine the group to which they belonged.

Eugenics in the United States lost popularity with its promotion in Nazi Germany, but it is still shocking to us to hear words from our leaders who promoted it. Listen to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the 1927 Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell which allowed forced sterilization in the United States:
"It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind....Three generations of imbeciles are enough"(4).

1. Martin S. Pernick, The Black Stork: Eugenics and the Death of Defective Babies in American Medicine and Motion Pictures Since 1915, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 22; Ian Dowbiggin, A Merciful End: The Euthanasia Movement in Modern America, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 14-15; Stephen L.Kuepper, “Euthanasia in America, 1890-1960: The Controversy, the Movement, and the Law,” PhD diss., (New Jersey: Rutgers: 1981), 62.
2. Kuepper, 27; Pernick, 24.
3. Plato. The Republic, Book V. Produced by Sue Asscher and David Widger. Web. 20 February 2012.
4. "The Sterilization of America: A Cautionary History." The Center for Individual Freedom. 17 May 2002. Web. 20 February 2012.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Persuasion

At different points in history, governments have devoted men, women, and resources to try to persuade others to their side. One significant example of this occurred in Germany under Adolf Hitler. Hitler knew how important it was to make sure the German people were on his side as leader of the country. One way he did this was by controlling what people heard. Specifically, near the beginning of World War II, Hitler made it a crime for anyone in Germany to listen to foreign radio broadcasts. These were called the “extraordinary radio measures.” He did this to ensure that Germans weren’t being persuaded by enemy countries to question their loyalty to Hitler. He knew that a German listening to a radio broadcast from Britain might persuade that German to believe that Great Britain was the good guy and Hitler the bad guy. This was so important, in fact, that two people in Germany were actually executed because they had either listened to or planned to listen to a foreign radio broadcast (one...
Post a Comment
Read more

Comparison

Psychologists and others have studied ways in which we compare ourselves to each other. One man named Leon Festinger argued that we tend to compare ourselves to other people when we don’t know how good or bad we are at something (like football or playing the guitar). One way we do this is when we compare ourselves to those who are not as good as we are, to protect our self-esteem (called “downward social comparison;” example: we’re playing basketball and miss most of our shots, but we feel okay because a teammate wasn’t even given the ball). Another comparison we make is when we compare ourselves to others who are doing much better than we are (called “upward social comparison”). When we see others who appear to be doing better than we are, we can respond by trying to improve ourselves, or by trying to protect ourselves by telling ourselves it’s not that important. There was a study published in 1953 by Solomon Asch, who asked students to take part in a “vision test.” The par...
Post a Comment
Read more

Learning and Change

In a recent article in National Geographic ( "Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science "), Joel Achenbach attempted to explain why humans have trouble believing the evidence laid out in scientific research. In the article, he cited a phenomenon called confirmation bias , our tendency to adopt the evidence that fits what we already believe. Now, I am a feeling person by nature. Subconsciously, I make choices in my environment based on my emotional reaction to it. Similarly, I have found that the information I remember most is the information I respond to with strong emotion, whether that emotion is humor, anger, shock, or something else. This is why I believe confirmation bias exists: we respond to facts emotionally. However, sometimes we learn information that, instead of confirming what we believe, has the opposite effect. We are introduced to facts that shock us out of our complacency. That shock can jar us into questioning long-held beliefs, and even entire worldviews...
Post a Comment
Read more